After another mass shooting, some suggestions.

Another school shooting. Ten dead in Texas to pile on the corpses of other mass shooting victims this calendar year. America again faces the anguish of senseless death, the loss of life too young, the calls for legislative action that never comes.

The Santa Fe high school shooting last Friday differed from most school shootings in the choice of weapons used. This time, the assailant, another angry misfit, did not choose a military combat weapon like an AR-15 of an AK-47. This time, the killer used a shotgun and a .38 caliber revolver — weapons that are common in U.S. households for hunting and personal protection.

Friday's murders emphasize that special weaponry is not required to produce horrific killing. A shotgun is a superior weapon in close quarters. A police chief once advised me that the best home protection firearm available was a shotgun, which does not require good aim to be effective and can take out multiple threats with one blast.

Although I can see no reason why civilians should have military combat rifles, it is obvious that the choice of weapons is not at the heart of America's problem with mass shootings. Here are some things that need to change if America is ever to get hold of its mass murder problem:

• Change the violence culture. Motion pictures and video games glorify violence and killing. Unstable, immature young men transfer the killing culture of video games to real life, apparently unaware that killing people is different from killing pixels on a video screen. Ratings of age-appropriateness on these video games are ineffective. The entire plot based on violence and murder must be eliminated. Even if these plots do not result in mass murder, they have to affect users' perception of the world and of people. The plots of popular movies have morphed into violence by "super heroes," suggesting that a "super hero" is needed to right wrongs or save the world. Practical solutions, empathy, compassion, peaceful mediation are not addressed. Some will cry that government cannot infringe on "freedom of expression," but courts have found that "shouting 'FIRE' in a crowded theater" is not protected by free speech. Recipes for mass violence and murder should not be protected free expression.

• Improve mental health outreach and monitoring. Today's teenagers are more troubled, more angry, more delusional than previous generations. The teen years have always been difficult, but today's teen years are more likely to be angry and violent. Teens can be taught to control their anger and their impulses.

• Examine family life of troubled teens. The absence of a father in the home is an indicator of likely problems. Divorce, death and other life events can also throw emotions off balance. Providing counselors and parental figures for these teens would be a worthwhile investment for society.

• Halt the sale of combat weapons to civilians. This should include the combat rifles, bulletproof vests, more deadly ammunition (such as hollow point bullets) and "bump stocks" or other devices to increase rate of fire of semi-automatic weapons. The Second Amendment (which, like all freedoms, is not absolute) would continue to protect ownership of firearms that are needed for hunting, home protection and target shooting.

• Examine the impact of the loss of religious education and faith-based humility. Disrespect for teachers, peers, elders and others has made younger generations more frightening and less teachable than their forebears. Instead of a culture of "what's in it for me?" or "I want mine," consider the impact of reciting the words, "You are dust and to dust you shall return" or "Love your neighbor as yourself" and "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." Governments cannot favor one religion over another or work to convert school children, but the world's great religions agree on certain principles, such as humility, love, compassion and charity. A decade ago, schools were teaching "self-esteem," so they should be able to teach humility and compassion without establishing a particular religion.

America's gun violence problem involves more than guns; it involves people, young and old, who see mass killings as a solution to their troubles and a chance at celebrity. NY Times columnist David Brooks recommended that all news media refrain from running the names or pictures of mass killers, thereby denying them the celebrity so many of them sought. Let's try a multi-faceted approach that addresses not just schools and not just guns but the entire culture of violence and emotionally troubled young men.

 

Court keeps expanding First Amendment

I spent three decades defending the First Amendment and exercising the press freedom that it guarantees. At times, however, I have to doubt the reasoning that extends First Amendment protections to practices I consider unrelated to the authors' definition of free speech.

The Supreme Court this week found in the First Amendment's language a prohibition against any state limiting the sale of violent video games to minors. Any such prohibition, the court majority said, inhibits free speech protected by the First Amendment. Having read press accounts of the decision, I cannot understand whose First Amendment rights are being inhibited. Is it the right of minors to expose their young minds to destructive violence or is it the right of game makers to sell its deleterious products? If the former, I question whether First Amendment protections are meant for minor children (would the court protect an adolescent's "mooning" of his parents or teachers or shouting "you suck!" over a bullhorn?). If it's the right of game makers, I question whether the First Amendment was ever intended to protect that kind of speech.

Andrew Cohen wrote an interesting explication of this week's two First Amendment cases for the Atlantic.

The video games case divided the court in an interesting way. The ruling left liberal Stephen Breyer and conservative Clarence Thomas in the minority with conservative Antonin Scalia (usually Thomas' philosophical mentor) defending the "liberal" position of free access for children to violent games. The California law the court shot down (excuse the violent metaphor) only required that children have a parent's permission to buy a "mature" rated video game. If parents have any role in child development (and that might be an open question these days), a state should be able to reinforce that role by statute. Extending full constitutional protection to the whims of immature children will inevitably lead to conflicts with parents who believe their role is to help mold children into mature, responsible, caring adults.

If the argument is that video game makers have a right to express their "art" in any way they see fit (including the murder of innocent "virtual" bystanders), the California law did not inhibit their ability to create their "art." It did not prohibit the use of violent video games by children. It only prohibited the purchase of these games without a parent's permission. Taken to its logical conclusion, the court could find that distillers should be allowed the freedom to sell their "artistic expressions" to 6-year-olds. Although the Constitution does not expressly mention it, there are and should be rights of parents to discipline and nurture their own children.